LETTER: It must be ‘fit for purpose’ above everything else

In response to Anthony Still’s letter, I must say there is some truth in what he says (“Who’s fooling who?” August 12). I remember 43 years ago when I was recruited as a representative by a life assurance company, one of the first things I was taught was to cultivate centres of influence.

For example, get to know someone in human resources at SABS or similar place with lots of employees. Establish rapport and develop a relationship so that he or she will become comfortable (and trust me) in alerting me to every new appointment. Take them out and wine and dine them. Almost like bribing, but using my hard-earned money. No employer’s money, no taxpayer money.

In spite of my best efforts not every referral turned into gold for me. Many of the new referrals preferred to deal with others who were not so new to the business and were more qualified than I was. They chose someone who in their view was more “fit for purpose” than I was at that stage. They didn’t feel bound to follow their HR person’s recommendation.

The real problem with cadre deployment is that there are many “fit for purpose" non-cadres with the same ethnicity and skin colour as the ones being deployed who are not considered for important and vital positions. When one considers that all deployees to public service positions are paid with taxpayers’ taxes, a huge problem arises.

When one political party points fingers at another regarding cadre deployment, it is simply political speak, which is invariably tantamount to hypocrisy (skynheiligheid), as alluded to by Still. Best person for the position should be law when taxpayer money is being dispensed.

John Johnston,Via e-mail

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.